Order unanimously reversed, without costs, defendant's motion denied and judgment reinstated. Memorandum: Plaintiffs appeal from an order granting defendant leave to reargue plaintiffs' original motion for a default judgment and which, upon reargument, vacated the order granting the default judgment, vacated the default judgment, and directed plaintiffs to accept service of defendant's answer and counterclaim. We reverse.
¶ A defendant late in answering is in default and his application to be excused therefrom is equivalent to a motion to open a default judgment ( Bermudez v. City of New York, 22 A.D.2d 865; see, also, Bernard v. City School Dist., 96 A.D.2d 995). To succeed on the motion, defendant must show a reasonable excuse for his delay and must demonstrate that his defense or claim has merit ( Fidelity Deposit Co. v. Andersen Co., 60 N.Y.2d 693).
¶ Here, defendant's delay of three months in serving an answer cannot be characterized as minor ( Bernard v. City School Dist., supra; cf. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Viger, 94 A.D.2d 592) and clearly resulted from law office failure. While Special Term had discretion to excuse such failure (CPLR 2005; 3012, subd [d]), it was improper to do so absent a showing of merit. Having failed to submit an affidavit, defendant relies solely upon the proposed answer and counterclaim for his showing of merit. Although a verified pleading alleging evidentiary facts may serve as an affidavit of merit (see CPLR 105, subd [t]), defendant's pleading as it appears in the record, does not contain a verification. Beyond that, however, the answer merely denies "knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief" as to plaintiffs' causes of action, and the counterclaim sets forth only conclusory facts in a skeletal manner and fails to address the gravamen of plaintiffs' claims. The pleading, therefore, is insufficient as an affidavit of merit.